Commissioner Goodman passes baton after stellar chairmanship

Posted by Rnla Admin0sc on December 22, 2014

As federal agencies go, perhaps only the bungling, vindictive IRS receives more criticism than the Federal Election Commission. The tax-collecting behemothintentionally targeted its perceived political enemies,repeatedly lied about its conduct, and then “lost” much of the evidence of its wrongdoing. It deserves little sympathy.

The FEC is a different story. The bulk of its criticism derives from factions unwilling to acknowledge the complex mixture of statutory duties, administrative prerogatives, and constitutional rights the Commission must balance. In place of this nuance, critics employ the sophisticated homily of “Do something!!”

Leading the charge is Campaign Legal Center. In the past month alone, the grouptauntedthe Commission as “mired in dysfunction,” “AWOL,”and“hamstrung by partisan commissioners,” who are “determined to undermine the campaign finance laws.” CLC—always heavy on bombast but often short on veracity seehere,here, andhere—evencalledfor the Commission’s disbandment.

Despite the untoward polemic, 2014 marked a productive year for the Commission under the stewardship of ChairmanLee E. Goodman. The agency updated long obsolete regulations, strengthened the party system, tackled complex, novel issues, and scheduled hearings on highly contentious topics for early next year. And according to campaign finance reporterDave Levinthal, it did all this without the “personal hostility that plagued the commission earlier this decade.”

Democrat Commissioner Ann Ravel, to her credit, quashed the needless acrimony andvotedwith the majority to have the regulations embody current law. The same meeting produced the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where the Commission will take comments and hold hearings on a variety ofMcCutcheon-related issues, including disclosure, affiliation, and earmarking.

The Commission also addressed and in some cases answered a variety of interesting and important topics including bitcoin contributions, cell phone banner ads, due process in enforcement, and the contours of political committee status.

Importantly the Commission also highlighted how the current legal regime hamstrings political parties. A majority voted to allow additional money for conventions (since superseded by ‘Cromnibus’) and relieved them of some reporting burdens. The Chairman and Vice Chair evenparticipated in a panelon strengthening the parties at George Washington University.

And contrary toconventional wisdom, the Commissioners did not primarily labor in intractable deadlocks. In fact, they formed a majority on 93% of all votes, including 86% on substantive matters.

The year was not was not without challenges, however. Vice Chair Ravelhintedshe would try to push the Commissionbeyond its statutory boundariesand into theultra viresposture of regulating political speech on the internet. This speech currently exists free to everyone and in a forum where all advocates compete in anopen, competitive market. The move, more suited for Oceania’sMinistry of Truththan the FEC, would constitute a major step backward for the Commission.

The FEC will never be the speech-stifling politburo ‘reformers’would prefer. The Commission is one of only two federal agencies with three commissioners from each party, and only the FEC then requires a four-vote majority for action. The structure exists as a bulwark against partisan railroading. The Commission is also distinctive in considering precious First Amendment rights when deciding political speech and process issues. And it must contemplate the ramifications of Congressional inaction on highly contentious topics to ensure it does not usurp legislative prerogatives.

The delicate balance produces hyperbolic invective from Campaign Legal Center and its ilk. But the criticism doesn’t mean the Commission isn’t functioning as designed. To the contrary, 2014 was a stellar year for the FEC.